Director Liability in Criminal Customs Claims: Court Ruling Signals Change

September 20, 2013

Director Liability in Criminal Customs Claims: Court Ruling Signals Change

Bangkok Post, Corporate Counsellor Column

Companies dealing with customs disputes in Thailand face a number of significant decisions in determining how they should respond.

One possible option is to consider settlement with the Customs Department at a pre-litigation stage or even after claims have been filed. Specifically, a company facing a customs dispute has the right to enter into a settlement agreement with the Customs Department under sections 102 and 102 bis of the Customs Act B.E. 2469 (1926).

When considering a settlement, the Customs Director General or a person appointed by the Director General will be in charge of settlement negotiations and has the legal authority to settle any customs offense in accordance with prescribed customs regulations.

Alternatively, a company may have the option of filing a claim against the Customs Department directly if it disagrees with a Customs Board of Appeals determination or wishes to defend charges filed by the relevant authorities under the Customs Act.

One factor that should be evaluated carefully before a company decides to settle, file, or defend customs claims is whether there are any criminal charges pending against the company and its authorized directors. In fact, it is possible for a customs dispute to involve the concurrent filing of both civil and criminal customs claims. This can have significant criminal implications for a company’s authorized directors—persons who may not have any history of criminal or civil wrongdoing.

The Customs Act provides a mechanism by which criminal wrongdoing of a director can be presumed. For example, under the Act, if a company is charged with a criminal customs offense, its directors can be named as individual accused parties.

Under section 115 quarter of the Customs Act, an offender who is a juristic person, a managing partner, or other person responsible for the operation of the juristic person shall be presumed liable for the criminal wrongdoing unless he or she can prove the offense was committed without his or her knowledge or consent, or that he or she acted reasonably in the circumstances in preventing the offense from occurring. As written, this section essentially presumes strict liability for a company director, shifting the burden on the director to prove his or her innocence.

Needless to say, the presumption of liability can have a significant impact on a company’s strategic approach in choosing whether to settle or defend a criminal customs claim.

In fact, the historic impact of section 115 quarter has been to place company management in a position whereby they are more likely to settle than defend.

On March 28, 2012, a groundbreaking Constitutional Court decision in a direct-sales case (Decision 12/2555) directly addressed the controversial issue of presumed liability in criminal claims.

It affects the applicability of a number of Thai laws presuming officer and director liability, including section 115 quarter of the Customs Act.

In its decision, the Constitutional Court ruled section 54 of the Direct Sales and Direct Marketing Act, with language nearly identical to that contained in section 115 quarter of the Customs Act, was contrary to the fundamental right of an accused, as protected by the Thai Constitution, to the presumption of innocence when charged with a criminal offense. For that predominant reason, the Court ruled that section 54, in applying a presumption of guilt to an accused, is unenforceable.

Applying the same standards as considered by the Constitutional Court in its review of section 54 of the Direct Sales and Direct Marketing Act, section 115 quarter of the Customs Act, which contains a presumption of guilt for those deemed to control a juristic entity charged with a customs offense, shall be similarly unenforceable and is, in fact, unconstitutional. This is supported further by the fact that section 211 of the Thai Constitution provides that decisions of the Constitutional Court shall apply to all cases not already determined as final judgments by the courts of Thailand.

The decision of the Constitutional Court reasserts the constitutional mandate not only provided by the Thai Constitution, but also recognized widely in the practice of criminal law worldwide. As such, those responsible for filing criminal claims under the Customs Act should not consider charging a company director via section 115 quarter without first ensuring there is sufficient evidence to prove that the director committed the alleged offense.

The requirement for such an assessment will now place more pressure on prosecutors to consider and rely upon the direct actions of the accused directors rather than presuming liability based solely on the directors’ authority or responsibility.

It is hoped that the support offered by the Constitutional Court decision will provide companies and their management with a fair opportunity to consider all approaches to resolving customs disputes without fear of the implications for those responsible for leading the companies.

Download Full Article

Related Professionals

Kasamesunt Teerasitsathaporn

Partner

Thailand

+66 2056 5555

Email

RELATED INSIGHTS

April 18, 2024

In-Court Arbitration in Thailand: A Tool Worth Exploring?

In-court arbitration is an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) tool provided in the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) for cases that have already been submitted to the court. Historically, in-court arbitration has not been a popular method of resolving disputes. Instead, out-of-court arbitration, as prescribed by the Thai Arbitration Act B.E. 2545 (2002), is far more utilized in practice. The popularity of out-of-court arbitration is demonstrated by the fact that presentations on arbitration in Thailand almost exclusively focus on out-of-court arbitration; in-court arbitration is rarely even a topic of discussion. This situation is partly because in-court arbitration has not been encouraged by the courts in the past. Further, it is also not common for parties to agree on arbitration clauses after a dispute arises and also after it has been submitted to the court. Instead, arbitration clauses are generally discussed and crafted during the negotiation of the contract, which will most likely provide that any dispute arising out of the contract is to be resolved by out-of-court arbitration. Nonetheless, the Thai Courts of Justice have recently started to support this in-court ADR tool as a viable option and to encourage parties to agree in-court arbitration clauses before proceeding with a case through trial. This article is not meant to assess whether in-court arbitration is preferable to either out-of-court arbitration or to having the case heard by professional judges of the Courts of Justice. Instead, the purpose of this article is to discuss certain key provisions of the CPC that parties should carefully consider before agreeing to an in-court arbitration clause. On this point, the CPC specifically states that out-of-court arbitration is prescribed by arbitration law, the Arbitration Act, which is an entirely separate piece of legislation drafted specifically to apply to out-of-court arbitration. In contrast, in-court arbitration is completely regulated by

April 17, 2024

Navigating Document Formality Challenges in Vietnam

Intellectual property rights holders pursuing legal actions in Vietnam have faced various challenges related to document formality in recent years. For example, in two different disputes at the Ho Chi Minh City Court, we have seen the judge request the claimants to re-prepare the civil dossier due to a lack of documentation proving the authorization of the signer—despite the fact that the cases had been ongoing for long time. Meanwhile, many domain names have been unable to be registered and transferred in recent months. Third-party representatives cannot handle the work as they normally would, as Vietnam’s domain name authority has required all documents to be signed by the domain name holders themselves, instead of the law firms representing them. Such demands have created unnecessary complexities and obstacles for IP holders seeking to protect their rights in Vietnam. Legal Formalities in the Court System Vietnam’s judicial landscape presents unique hurdles for IP holders to enforce their rights. One significant challenge is the requirement for the claimant’s legal representative (typically the CEO/president), as explicitly displayed on the company’s business license, to sign all documents related to a lawsuit. This requirement clashes with the operational practices of many foreign companies, where multiple individuals may have the authority to represent the company. It is extremely impractical, especially in a large multinational conglomerate, for the CEO/president to personally execute all documents and transactions. Instead, authorized staff within these organizations, such as department heads or general counsel, typically handle these tasks. In this situation, Vietnamese courts often demand additional documentation to prove the officers’ authority, necessitating specific authorization documents that may not always be readily available. The courts sometimes remain unconvinced by declarations from the CEO/president affirming the authorization of these officers, and despite such assurances, they may still demand tangible proof of authorization, adding

April 11, 2024

Litigation Funding in Thailand

Costly and time-consuming litigation can cause entrepreneurs to lose a lot of money, leading to cash flow problems and even threatening their ability to continue their business operations. One alternative to these financial challenges is litigation funding. This can be an option for people intending to file a lawsuit or those being sued to address potential financial liquidity problems caused by the financial demands of litigation. Litigation funding refers to financial support provided by an unrelated third party with no interest in the dispute who agrees to fund the costs a party incurs during the dispute resolution process in exchange for a portion of any money potentially awarded to the party being funded. If the funded party loses the case, the third party (i.e., the funder) is solely responsible for the costs. Although litigation funding is available in various countries, Thailand considers it to be contrary to public order and good morals, which renders litigation funding agreements void and unenforceable. Recognition and Enforcement in Thailand There are no laws or regulations in Thailand that specifically mention litigation funding. However, the Supreme Court has consistently ruled that litigation funding is not recognized and is not legally enforceable under Thai law. These Supreme Court precedents have established that agreements to receive benefits in return for pursuing litigation in which the funding party is not involved would be an act of seeking benefit from the litigation of others. As noted above, this purpose has been viewed as contrary to public order and good morals, which results in the agreement being void and unenforceable by other Thai courts (Supreme Court Judgment No. 7014/1999). Therefore, if a litigation funding agreement were in place in a Thai dispute and the funded party won, the funding party would most likely not be legally entitled to any

April 4, 2024

Thailand’s Criminal Court Establishes Cybercrime Division

On March 18, 2024, the president of the Supreme Court of Thailand announced the establishment of a specialized Technology Crime Division within the Criminal Court of Thailand. This represents a significant commitment to cybercrime within the Thai judiciary and a step forward in Thailand’s ability to investigate cybercrime. The rise in cybercrime investigations in recent years has made it increasingly difficult for Thailand’s traditional criminal courts to consider and issue enforcement orders in support of ongoing investigations in a timely manner. The new Technology Crime Division addresses this challenge. This new division has jurisdiction over cybercrime and technology-related crime, fraud or extortion using computers, and criminal offenses relating to personal data protection laws. In addition, this new division has jurisdiction over all requests from competent law enforcement officers seeking court orders under the Computer Crimes Act B.E. 2550, the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562, and the Cybersecurity Act B.E. 2562. The Technology Crime Division will have trainees and judges with expertise in technology and cybercrime—not only to facilitate expert prosecution of cybercrime but also to offer critical and time-sensitive support to law enforcement investigations of alleged cybercrime. The Technology Crime Division is not yet operational. The president of the Supreme Court is expected to announce the division’s opening date in the coming months. For more details on Thailand’s measures for dealing with cybercrime, please contact Michael Ramirez at [email protected] or Piyawat Vitooraporn at [email protected].

You are using an outdated browser and your browsing experience will not be optimal. Please update to the latest version of Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox. Install Microsoft Edge

Industries

Practices

September 20, 2013